AddThis

Monday, 29 August 2011

So responded a man to a Radio 4 interviewer who asked him whether he wished to remain in Libya or go to Europe. From the manner in which the question was framed and the response received, one could be forgiven for thinking that the interviewee was a native of the named continent, for why else would the interviewer pose the question in the form of a choice between Libya or ‘Europe’ (by which one assumes he meant the EU)? In fact, that proved not to be the case, for the man was a migrant worker from Nigeria. Knowing this to be so, why did not the interviewer instead enquire “Do you and other migrant workers intend to stay in Libya, or return home?”

That the interviewer should have posed the question in this way displays, yet again, the wearisome bias of BBC journalists, who appear intent upon reducing England to an ethnically and culturally balkanised ‘global village’ in miniature, populated predominantly by non-indigenes. Although such an eventuality may be viewed in indulgent soft-focus by BBC staff and the multiculturalists of our main political parties, this represents an emergent dystopian rather than utopian future, although of course, it would literally result in England becoming a ‘utopia’, that is, a ‘nowhere’. The human lineaments of this ‘nowhere’ are already becoming clearly defined in what was once London. It is up to you, dear reader, to help ensure that in future we do not wistfully refer to what was once England.

The thousands of sub-Saharan migrants who worked in Libya under Gaddafi did so in a variety of capacities, many working for the regime during its dying days as mercenaries. Some of the latter have been implicated in atrocities; others of course, will have been entirely innocent of such wrongdoing. Irrespective of the roles that these migrants fulfilled, for ill or for good, they are no longer welcome in Libya. Where they will head has already been indicated, and as a good proportion of them hail from Anglophone states such as Nigeria, we must expect a surge in ‘asylum’ applications and illegal immigration from this source, which will be accompanied by hard lobbying from various advocacy groups in the UK.

One of the most vocal groups will consist of their ethnic kin who have already established settlements in England in areas such as Peckham, who not unnaturally seek to augment their number within our shores. These will find support from specialist ‘human rights’ and ‘refugee’ organisations as well as from the BBC, the three main political parties and significant sections of the press. David Cameron and William Hague, having abused their control of the RAF to repeatedly bomb Libya, will no doubt seek to allow the ingress of these ‘refugees’ (in reality economic migrants) as a means of expiating their war guilt, which will be projected outwards onto the British people as a whole. “We”, they shall say, “have a duty to these people”. No, we do not.

Those who wish to see the death of England, and of European nations and peoples more generally, will welcome the influx of these sub-Saharan economic migrants, many of whom, by dint of their role in Libya, will be innately violent. Most of us however, will not, for we do not share the ethnically submissive lachrymose sentiments of the interviewer on this morning’s Today Programme. For us, the Libyan tragedy is not yet over, for its long-term repercussions have yet to be fully felt at home; repercussions moreover, which could be avoided altogether if only we had a government which adhered to what governments are supposed to do: to place the interests of those whom it purports to represent foremost.

Monday, 22 August 2011

Last week, the One Law for All (OLFA) campaign issued a report entitled ‘Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right’, co-written by Adam Barnett and Maryam Namazie. This, I have taken the time to read, ingesting both its text and subtext. Whereas the stated aim of the OLFA campaign – one secular law for all in the UK – is one which I wholeheartedly support, the same cannot be said for the content of this report which betrays a clear anti-English, anti-British, anti-White and anti-European bias. Whilst it attempts to pass itself off as an objective ‘report’, this piece of pseudo-scholarship is actually a piece of thinly disguised polemic attacking the fundamental right to national self-determination, positing in the process a highly distasteful and tendentious ‘link’ between the recent atrocity committed by Anders Breivik and organisations and personalities which the authors have chosen to label as ‘far-right’. Thus Stephen Gash (Stop the Islamisation of Europe (SIOE) and English Democrats), Anders Gravers (SIOE), Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer (counterjihad bloggers) and the EDL find themselves bracketed in with Combat 18 and Blood and Honour.

That the aforementioned should be the case becomes rather clearer when we consider that the founder and head of OLFA – Maryam Namazie – whilst routinely described by the mainstream media as a campaigner for ‘secularism’ and ‘women’s rights’, also happens to be a member of the Central Committee of the Worker-Communist Party of Iran. Given this party's Marxist stance, it should come as no surprise that it and its members are intrinsically hostile to the concept of national self-determination and the right of peoples to their national territories. Thus, from the perspective of Namazie et al, simply to object to the mass colonisation of non-Islamic nations – particularly European ones – by carriers of the Islamic ideological bacillus is defined as a ‘far-right’ position; indeed, any objection to mass immigration is summarily dismissed and stigmatised with the pariah label of ‘far-right’. Theirs is a form of language crafted to purposefully shut down debate through smearing those who hold views that they deem to be ideologically unpalatable. It is for this reason for example, that the OLFA report mentions the anti-Islamist movement’s concerns over Islamic immigration and high Muslim birthrates, yet only does so as a means of condemning those who express these views as ‘far-right’. The report simply does not address these very real and pressing demographic problems, preferring instead to adopt a moralistic and condemnatory tone, declaring objection to these processes as being forever off-limits because to conceptualise them as problems is deemed by the authors as ‘racist’. ‘Racist’. Has any word been so much abused and debased as this one over the past forty years? For OLFA, it would seem that you and I my friend, are “all racists now”. We are “far-right”.

The absence of intellectual rigour within the OLFA report, as well as its polemical nature, spring directly from Namazie’s Marxist-Leninist ideology and agenda. For anyone acquainted with Marxist theory and the sad historical record of its application, it is quite clear that Namazie is attempting to use the ‘one law for all’ issue for the straightforward purpose of promoting her wider Communist worldview, which is clear to see in the ‘Enemies Not Allies’ document. This ‘enemies not allies’ theme had previously been aired by Namazie at a public seminar in January this year, and drew some interesting criticism from Douglas Murray.

That a report produced by a Communist should contain wilful distortions of the truth is not surprising, but some of the ‘facts’ that it cites are frankly incorrect. For example, on page 40 it claims that the English Democrats advocate ‘secession from both the EU and the United Kingdom’. Whereas the party does call for England to withdraw from the EU, it argues for an English Parliament, not necessarily for the dissolution of a UK-wide parliament. The English Democrats contains unionists as well as those who would prefer to see the dissolution of the union, but it most certainly is not party policy to formally dissolve the UK.

Stephen Gash and Anders Gravers of SIOE are both described as ‘racists’, with Gash being accused of ‘clear racism in statements and deeds’. The following excerpt from page 42 of the report illustrates the malicious and fanatical intent of the authors to play the race card despite the overwhelming evidence (even cited in the report!) that these men are not by any credible definition of the word ‘racists’. Thus, they state that SIOE claims not to be racist because of its slogan:

“‘Racism is the lowest form of stupidity! Islamophobia is the height of common sense!’ and because ‘co-founder of SIOE, Anders Gravers has fathered two mixed-race children with two women of different races’. These examples further trivialise racism (such as the use of the word ‘stupidity’ when racism dehumanises, kills and destroys people’s lives) and are tactical for purposes of appearance.”

Read those last six words again: ‘are tactical for purposes of appearance’. What?! So, Anders Gravers has sired mixed-race offspring with two women as a tactic ‘for purposes of appearance’? For me, that one statement demonstrates beyond any doubt that the objective faculties of Maryam Namazie and Adam Bennett are somewhat ‘challenged’ to put it in the euphemistic PC speech that we are enjoined to use these days. Namazie and Bennett stretch the reader’s credulity beyond breaking point with such an absurd assertion. So intent are they to brand all opposition to Islamisation and mass immigration as ‘far-right’ that they ignore the truth and attempt to foist upon the reader the most egregious distortions of reality. Elsewhere in the report however, there is substance to some of the allegations relating to other figures (Mark Collett and Nick Griffin for example – bad apples both and a blemish upon the nationalist movement), but in essence the function of the report boils down to this: OLFA is the only legitimate means of protesting against political Islam in the UK; join OLFA, or we’ll slander you as being a ‘far-right racist’. Sorry Maryam, but this atheist, secular blogger doesn’t subscribe to your distorted Communist rantings about a ‘far-right’ ‘Christian’ ‘anti-Muslim’ conspiracy.

Shamefully, as well as containing factual inaccuracies, deliberate character assassination and ideological distortions, the OLFA report seeks in its concluding section to use the recent atrocity perpetrated by Anders Breivik as a pretext for highlighting the ‘dangers’ of the ‘far-right’ as it defines it, stating:

Though the far-Right appears to target Islamism, they are two sides of the same coin. Islamism is also very much an extreme Right movement . . .There is fundamentally little difference between Anders Behring Breivik’s Knights Templar and the EDL or SIOE. What they want is the same; their tactics are different. The EDL and SIOE are merely better at duping the public. (p. 60)

Groups like SIOE and the EDL are as hateful as the Islamists; they are enemies not allies. Clearly, our enemy’s enemy is not necessarily our friend. (p. 62)

What disgusting and baseless slurs! The authors of the report could stoop no lower than to bracket the EDL and SIOE with the mass murderer Breivik and Islamists. Well, the dissemination of big lies is an integral part of the Communist tradition, and Namazie reveals herself to be very much at home in playing the part of a Leninist vanguardist in this respect.

Although one might be tempted to pen a riposte titled ‘Enemies Not Allies: OLFA’ I will not do so, for I know that most supporters of OLFA will not be ideological clones of Namazie and Bennett, and will instead possess a broad range of ideological backgrounds and affiliations, a number of which I would far from condemn. Maryam Namazie no more represents the stance of secularists than Mark Collett represents that of anti-Islamists and nationalists. ‘Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right’ is a deeply flawed and opportunistic report that if read at all should be done so with a very critical eye.

Saturday, 13 August 2011

Some excellent observations by historian David Starkey on the nature of the recent riots to sweep a number of England’s cities: the corrosive impact of “black culture” and its adoption by wiggas. The interview below was initially screened on BBC2's Newsnight.

Thursday, 11 August 2011

Following the unprecedented orgy of violence which was initially unleashed on Saturday evening, it would appear that last night there was very little unrest on the streets of the cities of England. Beefed up policing and public calls for rioters to be dealt with harshly, together with a general sense of shock and disgust, probably combined to bring about this halt to the disorder. Many of the perpetrators of the unrest are likely to be fatigued, and in Manchester and Liverpool, the rain must have deterred many from venturing out to cause mayhem. The question that everyone will be asking today is: are the riots over, or are we witnessing a temporary lull? We shall know soon enough.

Innocent lives have been lost; businesses, homes and livelihoods have been destroyed, and most of us are left with a distinct sense of unease. What does this destructive outburst say about the state of Britain, more specifically England, today? That is a question to which I will suggest some answers this evening, and they do not chime with the frankly nauseating attempt to make party-political capital out of the riots displayed by Harriet Harman on Newsnight yesterday. This violence was not about ‘Tory cuts’, but something far deeper and altogether more serious and worrying.

Below are two videos. The first relates to a tragic incident in Birmingham, in which a car was deliberately driven at a group of men, killing three of them. The father of one of the deceased speaks of his loss and calls for calm. One can only express sympathy for him and his family, as well as for the relatives and friends of the other young men who lost their lives. The second video displays a reporter steadfastly attempting to persuade a man to alter his story to fit with her ideological preconceptions. This attitude on the part of the reporter is alas, mainstream, for journalists have to subscribe to the NUJ code on the reporting of ‘minority’ racial and religious issues which demands systematic distortion of the truth if it does not accord with dogma.

Wednesday, 10 August 2011

The EDL have responded to the riots and looting by calling upon members in some locations to prepare to defend their neighbourhoods, homes and families. This elicited a good response in Eltham, where about 50 members of the EDL came down to help the locals nip any trouble in the bud. With local non-EDL, their total numbers came to somewhere between 200 (according to the Daily Telegraph) and 500 (according to the Casuals United blog). The Daily Telegraph report on the joint EDL and local attempt to defend Eltham was not framed in a complementary manner, and neither was it accurate, describing the EDL as a 'political party' which anyone who has heard of the EDL knows that it is not, as well as 'far right', which is a straightforward baseless slur upon the good name of the movement. The movement should be congratulated in taking the initiative to help English communities to defend themselves at a time when the police find themselves overstretched and unable to respond to every call for assistance.

The first of the videos below shows EDL vigilantes on the streets of Eltham looking to ensure that the looters don't trash their community. The second video is from the Daily Telegraph and features an interview with the EDL's south-east regional organiser, Jack England. Unfortunately, this video demonstrates that the Metropolitan Police seem to have fallen for the smears about the EDL and sent a significant number of officers to kettle the EDL and other local residents who had come out to defend their neighbourhood. This is a great pity, as obviously these desperately-needed police resources should have been deployed elsewhere in the capital where they were needed.

Tuesday, 9 August 2011

A fourth night of riots witnesses the first significant disorder in Manchester, which so far as can be gleaned from current reports, is following the opportunistic pattern of wanton vandalism and attempted looting witnessed in many other urban locations. Channel 4 News reports that Miss Selfridges on Market Street in Manchester city centre has been set alight and the police are advising people to stay out of the area. Let’s hope that this act of arson so early in the evening does not presage a turbulent night to come. This district was of course regenerated in the wake of a massive IRA bomb planted in Corporation Street in 1996, and it would be tragic if the people of Manchester should once again be compelled to pick up the pieces following another destructive act aimed at the heart of their city.

The Daily Mirror also reports that several hundred riot police have clashed with hooded 'youths' in Piccadilly Gardens. Other reports state that arsonists have hit a community centre in Salford and that there have been 'skirmishes' between police and approximately 20 'youths', and the Metro claims that rioters have been attempting to break into the Arndale Centre and smashing shop windows across the city centre. A later update from the Mirror claimed that up to 2,000 'thugs' had taken to the streets of Manchester, which by any reckoning is a disturbingly high number. Shops ransacked included Bang and Olufsen, Diesel and High and Mighty.

The Daily Telegraph remarks upon the tender age of a number of those involved, with some as young as 9, 10 and 11 taken to the streets with scarves drawn across their faces or wearing balaclavas. These children, it claims, have been used by organised crimincal gangs as lookouts during their looting spree. The video below features a BBC report on events in the city this evening.

Riot police are out in force this evening in Leeds city centre in the hope that any prospective violence can be nipped in the bud. Within the past couple of hours, police are reported as having dispersed 40 or so hooded ‘youths’ in City Square. With it being sunny and fine, the forces of law and order must be hoping for heavy rain (which surely can’t be that far away in an English summer!).

Opportunistic criminality continues to spread, with disorder breaking out in the hitherto unaffected cities of Bristol and Liverpool. BBC Radio 4 also reports that cars were damaged in Manchester last night. In London, which witnessed a staggering night of violence, Woolwich, Ealing and Camden joined Tottenham, Enfield, Croydon, Lewisham, Hackney and Peckham as scenes for looting, arson and attacks on the police. Birmingham city centre too was blighted by violence and looting. One commentator on Radio 4’s Today Programme this morning stated that the focus of looting in London last night appeared to be retail parks, large and small.

The BBC states that approximately 150 rioters attacked shops and cars in different parts of Bristol city centre including Cabot Circus and Broadmead. Disorder is also said to have affected the Stokes Croft and St Werbughs areas of the city, and roads were blocked to prevent 'youths' from St Pauls heading for the city centre. However, Avon and Somerset Police seem confident that they are well prepared for any further disturbance.

In Liverpool, Toxteth witnessed a relatively brief confrontation between the police and masked ‘youths’, whilst “isolated acts” occurred in the city, such as the torching of cars and criminal damage to property.

Two football fixtures have been cancelled at Charlton and West Ham this evening as a consequence of the unrest, and Cobra meets at 9.00 this morning to discuss how to deal with and contain the spread of the riots.

What we are witnessing is not ‘political protest’, but straightforward opportunistic criminality. To some extent however, this violence has been encouraged by irresponsible reporting in some sections of the media, some of the worst of which has been provided by the BBC. Throughout Saturday evening and Sunday, BBC television news reports repeatedly stated that Mark Duggan had been shot by the Metropolitan Police and that a protest had been held to demand answers regarding the shooting. What its reports glaringly and purposefully omitted was the police claim that Duggan had been shot in an exchange of fire. Moreover, the BBC simply parroted the claims of Duggan’s family and supporters vis-à-vis his character, disregarding the fact that this man was a gun-toting ‘gangsta’. Thus, the BBC’s portrayal of the incident that has been used as the pretext for the outbreak of mass criminality that we are witnessing was grossly distorted and irresponsible. One could justifiably say that by framing the Duggan case in this fashion, and by continually seeking out ethnic-minority voices to condemn the police for ‘brutality’ and ‘racism’, the BBC has actually been a significant contributor to this violence and anarchy.

The editorial team at the BBC has a lot to answer for, and it is about time that its members rejected the NUJ code on reporting race and religion which leads it to systematically distort the whole of its output to comply with an ideology that denies reality. Sadly, many businesses have been destroyed by this wave of violence, and the BBC ought to realise that unless it adopts an objective and responsible approach to its coverage and interpretation of the civil disorder spreading across the country, its reputation too will become just another casualty of the rioting. Something else truly shocking that the BBC would never report honestly because it reflects badly upon multiculturalism and mass immigration can be watched here.

Monday, 8 August 2011

According to Reuters, Birmingham city centre is now suffering from copycat riots with a number of shops having been attacked and looted. Two live feeds have also reported that the Hippodrome Theatre is "on lockdown", and more recently it has been claimed that the Square Peg pub on Corporation Street has been "smashed up". There are also uncomfirmed reports that public transport into and out of Birmingham city centre has been suspended. ITN reports that police have arrested nine rioters, six of whom were juveniles. Apparently, mobile phone shops had proven to be the main focus of the looters' attentions.

The first video below shows a report on looting in Birmingham, whilst the second shows a Sainsbury's being looted in the centre of the city. The photograph purports to be of a looted Adidas store, although it has been claimed that it may have been taken at one of the other riot scenes. Hopefully, reports that 'youths' are gathering in Wolverhampton will prove to be unfounded. This disorder needs to be dealt with swiftly and decisively to stop the contagion from spreading. Details and video footage of this evenings riots in London can be accessed here.

The systematic opportunistic criminality that has brought violence and looting to the streets of London now enters its third night, with disorder spreading to Hackney, Peckham ('Little Nigeria'), Lewisham and Croydon. This is turning out to be a truly terrible night for the capital, with, states the Independent "thousands of yobs" taking to the streets. A later report by the Daily Mail also lists Deptford, Clapham and Harrow as having been blighted by violent disorder. According to the BBC, the riots have also led to the cancellation of football matches at Charlton and West Ham tomorrow.

The picture preceding the videos shows an unidentified building ablaze in Croydon (one, unfortunately, of many). The first video shows a burning building next to a branch of Greggs on Peckham High Road, whereas the second is taken from a Russia Today news report and shows cars and properties ablaze in Lewisham this evening. With unrest spreading to Birmingham and tension reported to be mounting in Leeds, this is turning out to be the most depressing evening that I can recall. Good luck to the police across the country in containing this outbreak of mob hysteria. An overview of the origins of the riots and videos from Saturday evening can be accessed here. Further information and commentary will be posted on this blog as the night unfolds.

Sadly, what was witnessed in London last night was the downside of social media: orchestrated criminality. ‘Rioting’ spread from Tottenham to Enfield, Walthamstow and Brixton. An estimated 200 ‘youths’ took to the streets for a night of vandalism and exchanges with the police in Enfield, wantonly trashing shops and cars. The Guardian reports that looters gathered under cover of a festival in Brixton and stole goods from Footlocker, H&M and Vodafone, removing their bounty in cars and on scooters. Unrest in Brixton continued into the early hours.

You will hear many media voices in the days, weeks and months ahead, claiming that this outburst of criminality is in some way connected with ‘youth disaffection’, ‘lack of opportunity’, ‘discrimination’, ‘poor police-community relations’, ‘economic deprivation’ and so on. It is not. This violence is a simple manifestation of criminality; criminality facilitated by the new social media and mobile phones, bringing together likeminded criminals and thugs who hitherto would not have been able to coordinate their actions. Interestingly, TheGuardian notes that the looters' phone of choice may be the BlackBerry Messenger (BBM) because

Some of these criminals are primarily interested in opportunistic looting, some in gathering for a ‘ruck’ with the police, and others for a bit of both and whatever other opportunities should offer themselves up when law and order are suspended: vandalism, arson and random assaults upon members of the public.

They have realised that such coordination allows them to outmanoeuvre the police, and by latching onto a ‘protest’ about the death of an armed drug dealer in Tottenham, they attempt to pass off their wilful antisocial acts as somehow ‘legitimate’ in the eyes of certain media commentators and politicians. The dominant meme at play in the media and mainstream political parties is that the actions of such people can be explained through reference to social and economic marginalisation and ‘powerlessness’. The looters and rioters are thus dignified with a political status that they do not deserve. Those individuals who have chosen to take to the streets to attack people and property have done so because they have made a conscious decision to act in that way. They have not been compelled to indulge in violence, they have willed themselves to violence. It is the individuals conducting this violence, and they alone, who are responsible. Any governmental response which seeks to lavish taxpayers’ money upon those areas that have witnessed this disorder would not only be myopic, but immoral and utterly ineffectual. It is time for ‘community workers’ and ‘leaders’ also to stop behaving opportunistically by using such criminality as a pretext for bidding for more regeneration and ‘social-cohesion’ project funding. Deal with the criminals through the legal system and confront the attitudes underpinning the criminal subculture: this is the correct way to deal with this problem.

Sunday, 7 August 2011

A brief outline of the rioting in Enfield Town can be found here. The first 'video' below, comprised of still shots taken in Enfield this evening, gives some idea as to the level of wanton damage so far inflicted by the rioters, but it is not possible at this stage to ascertain their identities. The second and third videos are Sky News reports from earlier this evening, the former of which shows police making an arrest in Enfield and the latter providing a more comprehensive picture of this evening's events. Thankfully, the violence does not appear to have escalated to anything like the levels witnessed in Tottenham last night (videos of which can be accessed here). Updates on the rioting can be accessed here.

It would seem either that criminal elements that conducted last night’s rioting in Tottenham have moved on to target Enfield Town, or a separate mob has gathered for a copycat confrontation with the police. Reports from the Haringey Independent, London 24 and the Enfield Independent state that there have already been minor clashes between police and rioters following an afternoon of rumours on social networking sites that Enfield would witness violence this evening. The first trouble took place at around 6.30pm, with some 100 rioters smashing shop windows and trashing a police car. As of 9.30pm, it was reported that the number of rioters had risen to circa 200.

The Metropolitan Police had made some allowance for potential trouble by sending 20 riot police to protect Enfield Town Station. As to the identities of the rioters, reports have little to say other than that they were ‘youths’ kitted out in stereotypical contemporary rioter attire, wearing hoodies with scarves drawn across their faces. A group of about 30 is said to have been driven back by the police along Southbury Road, and was last sighted heading towards the centre of Enfield. Anticipating that the Met could be overstretched this evening, the Daily Telegraph reports that additional officers have been drawn in from the following neighbouring forces: City of London, Essex, Kent, Surrey and Thames Valley, but it has not been revealed where precisely it is intended to deploy them.

The opportunistic nature of this criminality has been demonstrated by the fact that this evening's rioters targeted a jewellery shop and briefly entered, although the Guardian does not mention whether they happened to make off with any of the shop's wares. Moreover, other opportunistic criminals keen to conduct their business behind the smokescreen of 'social protest' appear to have been squaring up for a confrontation with the police in Brixton earlier this evening, where they hurled bottles at police vans. According to the Telegraph, three police officers have been hospitalised following the incident in Coldharbour Lane. It remains to be seen whether the recently formed vigilante groups in Wood Green will be put to the test tonight in defending their businesses.

Last night’s rioting in Tottenham is reported to have spilled over into Wood Green, and it is feared that there will once again be unrest tonight. Reports indicate that it took only 200-300 rioters to wreak havoc in Tottenham, endangering life and limb as they looted and set light to properties, businesses and vehicles. The cost of the damage is already estimated to be many millions of pounds, and fearing that the Metropolitan Police will again be overwhelmed by violent criminals, the London Daily News reports that a number of shop owners have formed their own ‘local protection units’. A spokesman for the Green Lanes ‘unit’ told the paper "We do not have any trust in the local police, our shops are next on the target list by the thugs who have ransacked Tottenham, we will protect our property."

That people feel that they need to do this is a shameful indictment of the inadequacy of the police force. Nobody should feel so fearful for their physical safety and that of their property that they feel compelled to form voluntary defence associations, but this is what is happening. This failure to honour the most basic duty of any government – to safeguard the physical safety of citizens and their property and to uphold the rule of law - whilst the ConDem administration prioritises foreign aid and costly wars which have nothing to do with our national interest, indicates that there is something dangerously wrong with the thinking of those in government. To cut police budgets and spending on other essential public services and allowing civil order to disintegrate whilst appropriating our money to spend on their pet projects abroad represents a grotesque abuse of office. Moreover, it is of course not only the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats who approve of increasing foreign aid and meddling in overseas conflicts, but the Labour Party too.

It is time that it was made crystal clear that the duty of any government that purports to represent its citizenry is first and foremost to preserve public safety and the rule of law. Without seeking to prioritise and secure these basic preconditions of a stable civil society, it cannot be said to be a government in any meaningful sense of the term. Worryingly, those who have banded together to form ‘local protection units’ in Wood Green, Turnpike Lane and Green Lanes, are said to be Kurds and Turks, or, to put it bluntly, Muslims. If our forces of law and order are seen to be failing so spectacularly, to whom and to what do you think they might turn?

Mark Duggan, a well-known gun-toting drug dealer dies in an exchange of gunfire with the Metropolitan Police on Thursday and members of the wider criminal community in Tottenham promptly stage a ‘protest’ which ends with them burning buildings, police cars and a bus. Whilst Tottenham burned, looters afforded themselves the opportunity to ransack local shops, wheeling away trolley-loads of stolen goods. There are also reports, as yet lacking in detail, that the rioting spread to Wood Green. Worryingly, the police response has been seen to be so ineffectual that vigilante units have been formed in Wood Green to protect local businesses. This riot is indicative not of any ‘oppression’ of the so-called local ‘community’, or of its ‘deprivation’, or a sign of ‘discrimination’, ‘racism’ or any of those other smokescreens behind which black criminals hide themselves, but of a deep-rooted inherent criminality in part of the black population that revels in violence and gangsterism.

She says that Duggan was “not violent”? A man carrying a gun who exchanged shots with the police was “not violent”? If he was “not violent”, I dread to think what the violent members of the Tottenham criminal underworld must be like. Nikki’s statement is very revealing, for it shows that life has become so debased and devalued in Tottenham that it is seen as acceptable and normal to carry a firearm, and to use it.

Mark Duggan: "not an aggressive person"?

The 200-300 criminals who attacked the police, looted and destroyed property and attacked a bystander for speaking to the fire brigade, should be dealt with harshly. There is no justification for such actions. In what way does throwing Molotov cocktails constitute legitimate ‘protest’? Decent residents of Tottenham need to distance themselves from the criminal thugs in their midst, and come clean about the real problems relating to the anti-social ‘urban’ subculture to which a significant swathe of their younger members subscribe. They should not fall into the trap of playing the victim card or crying ‘racism’, and admit instead that they have a problem and deal with it accordingly.

I have already seen one local community worker talking to a BBC reporter about a sense of "grievance" amongst "the youth", with the reporter masochistically egging him on to lay the blame not upon the criminals who perpetrated this outrage, but upon the wider (and by implication) white society. The BBC thus treats the rioters as animalistic automata with no sense of self-restraint or morality, who can only 'react' to their external environment in a brute fashion; they are infantilised and treated as 'victims' who should be placated with more facilities, projects and regeneration funds. Interestingly, the BBC television news report I watched nowhere mentioned that Duggan was carrying a gun when shot, and thus portrayed the case as if it had involved an 'innocent' black man being summarily executed by members of the casually racist Metropolitan Police. Such distorted and tendentious reporting renders the BBC an extremely unreliable news agency, and the faults displayed in its reporting of the Duggan case and subsequent rioting are very much in line with the editorial line of its mainstream output. Bear this in mind over the coming months as the BBC seeks to create another black martyr to juxtapose with a set of white devils.

Saturday, 6 August 2011

Yesterday’s posting on the Lancaster Unity website entitled ‘Different faces, same hatred – Breivik and EDL’, serves to remind us that whereas the criminal responsible for the twin atrocities of Oslo and Utøya lies in custody, the Unite Against Fascism (UAF) campaign is resolutely determined to find additional scapegoats here in Britain. Witchfinders always need witches, and UAF being the contemporary collective equivalent of Witchfinder General Mathew Hopkins, is calling forth its helpers to assert that ‘the mark’ has been found that demonstrates the satanic pact between the EDL and Anders Breivik.

“Aye Master Lennon, will ye not confess to consorting with Breivik through spirits aerial? Here, behold the evidence! Are these not the words of one of your mewling familiars? Look you sir! Were pleasantries not exchanged at a distance? Was the corporeal presence of Breivik not summoned up by your spells, by the power of words fascistical? Aye, he suckled at the very teat of fascism and drank lustily of its milk! You Sir bear the mark, for the stamp of the swastika shows despite the denial. Is not denial the very sign of your guilt? We have already slain a griffin, so should we not prove capable of slaying a man? Fascist serpent!

Come followers, let us ride to Tower Hamlets and incite the righteous ire of our Muslim brethren! Let us fan the blaze in preparation for an immolation unto Allah! Saturday 3 September shall be our day, when our cocks shall crow for a new dawn! We shall snort and stamp like bulls, and rend the air with our virtuous cries! “Who’s streets? Our streets! Nazi scum, off our streets! Muslim and gay, unite and pray! Hack our heads off, another day!”

Alternatively, this is how the Lancaster Unity blog would prefer to justify its jamboree of indignation:

UAF has produced a poster – different faces, same hatred – warning that Norway killer Anders Behring Breivik was inspired by the poisonous politics of the English Defence League.

The poster shows Breivik – a fascist who hates multiculturalism, Muslims and the left – and “Tommy Robison”, leader of the EDL, an organisation of racist and fascist thugs who hate multiculturalism, Muslims and the left.

Breivik boasted of his links with the EDL and was inspired by its ideas. The national demo against the EDL on Saturday 3 September in Tower Hamlets, east London, is a chance to show our opposition to the homegrown racists and fascists of the EDL and our horror at Breivik’s massacre in Norway.

Different Faces - Same Hatred

Ken Livingstone - UAF Chairman

Mohammad Sidique Khan - 7/7 Bomber

Anti-English UAF not welcome in England. Support the EDL in its struggle to combat the Islamisation of England by opposing UAF and its vicious anti-English ideology.

Tuesday, 2 August 2011

Before proceeding to discuss the above, I would like you to ask yourself the following questions:

Is there a housing shortage in the UK?

Are millions of native Britons unemployed in the UK?

Are our roads frequently reduced to gridlock or stop-start through sheer weight of traffic?

Can we produce enough food to feed our population sustainably?

Is our rail system overcrowded and overpriced?

Can we produce enough energy from domestic sources to supply our existing population?

Does concreting over greenbelt and cramming ever more people into our country (particularly England) improve the natural environment or degrade it?

Would continuing to increase an already rapidly growing population ease any of the above problems?

With respect to the last question the answer is a clear "no", and that, without taking into account any of the very significant cultural problems that would arise from Turkish accession to the EU, is reason enough for blocking Turkey’s entry.

Although I am against the UK’s membership of the EU, the fact is we are currently a member state and will therefore suffer the negative consequences of further mass immigration and accelerated Islamisation should Turkey join. Moreover, as the parliamentary Home Affairs Committee has highlighted, Turkish accession would also extend the direct borders of the EU to Syria, Iraq and Iran. Turkey’s borders with these neighbouring states are highly porous, thereby permitting a considerable flow of migrants into Turkey from these points of origin and further afield.

As our economy and society are already creaking under the weight of an excessive number of immigrants, many of them unassimilable carriers of Islam, what possible benefit could there be for us in allowing Turkey to join the EU? Contrary to the opinions of David Cameron who is in favour of accession, I would say that rather than Turkey’s membership bringing us benefits, it would bring us only woes. This is not to say that I condemn all Turks, for I do not, but unfortunately the Western-looking and thinking Kemalists are in a shrinking minority within Turkey itself, whereas the backward doctrinaire Muslim population of the country is growing at a rapid rate. I do feel sympathy for the Kemalists, but I am afraid that rather than bolstering their secular traditions, membership of the EU would serve as a means of Islamising currently non-Islamic countries. To allow Turkey in would be to haul a massive Islamic Trojan horse into Europe, and as such, Turkey must remain without the gates.

Although both the Financial Times and the BBC yesterday ran stories with headlines that suggested to readers that Parliament was wavering over Turkish accession – ‘UK panel warns on Turkey EU membership’ and ‘MPs warn over Turkey migrant risk to EU’, the substance of the two articles revealed that the parliamentarians, such as Keith Vaz, simply want to see Turkey’s border controls beefed up before it joins the club. Greece is already suffering terribly from sharing a border with Turkey, with the FT reporting that some 350 illegal immigrants cross the border from Eastern Thrace every day. These aren’t Turks, but Afghans, Pakistanis, central Asians and north Africans.

The BBC cites the committee as estimating the total number of likely Turkish immigrants to the EU at anywhere between 500,000 and 4.4 million by 2030. To me, given our recent experience of immigration from new EU members, these numbers seem to be considerably underestimated. Furthermore, they do not take into account the high birth-rate of Muslim Turks, which is a considerable danger in itself. Demographic Islamisation is not some paranoid conspiracy theory, it is a concrete fact being facilitated by political elites across Europe.

UKIP leader Nigel Farage correctly noted that the aim of the report was to facilitate Turkey’s EU entry rather than to block it, and to portray this in a positive light. His comments suggest that he does not think that this is a good idea, but unfortunately he made no reference to Islamisation, which betrays UKIP’s mainstream view on this matter:

Even the Trades Union Congress (TUC) is lobbying hard for Turkey to join, which is odd given that an influx of Turkish labour would further undermine the job opportunities and working conditions of our own citizens. The TUC, like our Westminster political class, is out of touch with the concerns of the ordinary people it purports to represent, and two years ago even launched an initiative to help soft-soap working people with respect to the implications of prospective Turkish mass labour migration.

If you wish to prevent Turkey from joining the EU, please write to your MP outlining why you think that its membership would be detrimental to the future of this country. Join demonstrations against Islamisation. Raise the issue with friends and family. Ensure that as many people as possible are apprised of the facts relating to this issue, for Islamisation is stepping up a gear, and if we don’t stop it soon, our future looks very bleak indeed.

Monday, 1 August 2011

It is always sad to witness someone slip into mental illness, and I am sure that you will join me today in commiserating with the family of Wayne Parnell the South African cricketer and current Sussex fast bowler. It would appear that Parnell’s seeming mental collapse, that is, his conversion to Islam, has been precipitated by his moving in an environment where constant media and political propaganda portraying this vicious backward ideology as a ‘religion of peace’ gulled him into its unforgiving embrace. Now that he's in, he'll not find it easy to leave should he realise his error.

We can but extend our sympathies to the Parnell family, for they have at least for the time being lost a son, whom it would appear is contemplating assuming the moniker of Waleed which means ‘new born’ (one born every minute more like). Such a decision must smart painfully. What a disappointment and a sorrow it must be for any parent to see one of their children choose such a course. As one wag remarked in the comment stream to one of the articles on this story, his bowling prowess should stand him in good stead when it comes to attending stonings. It’d be a pretty frightening sight to witness him deploying “Two points, ah, two flats, and a packet of gravel” at such an event!

Let us hope that this represents but the folly of a confused youth, and that Parnell will quickly rethink this rash and painful (ouch! Must they cut there?) decision.

As has already been seen with attempts to insinuate links between Anders Behring Breivik and groups such as the EDL, SIOE (Stop the Islamisation of Europe) and prominent counterjihad bloggers (e.g. Fjordman, Gates of Vienna), the multiculturalist establishment is continuing to use the atrocity in Norway to shift up a gear in implementing its anti-indigenous project. It is in this context that the information in an Observer article published on Saturday evening should be seen. Naturally, it should surprise nobody that the Observer, being owned by the Guardian, should seek to capitalise upon Breivik’s act of mass murder to forward its agenda, but confirmation of an ‘elite’ intention to further constrain the already restricted parameters of discourse relating to Islam and the fundamental rights of European peoples themselves, has been signalled by Thorbjørn Jagland, the current Nobel Chairman and General Secretary of the Council of Europe.

Not only is Jagland angry at what is normally pejoratively referred to as ‘far-right’ political discourse about multiculturalism and Islam, but he has also cautioned mainstream politicians across Europe not to use what he describes as “right-wing rhetoric”. Thus, he wants to use Breivik’s actions as a pretext to close down debate about multiculturalism, Islamisation and mass immigration, unless all of these phenomena are framed in glowing terms. The result of such an approach is the inevitable destruction and replacement of all European societies and peoples by immigrants, Muslim immigrants in particular. Jagland’s stance confirms the essential hostility of a transnational ‘elite’ ideology towards the interests and safety of the indigenous peoples of Europe. Moreover, this ideology is unfortunately common to governing circles from Lisbon to Helsinki.

Jagland singled out David Cameron for criticism, claiming that the language that he employed in his Munich speech about multiculturalism was “playing with fire”. He claims that such language is fanning “far-right sentiment”. Cameron, as anyone with a functioning brain knows, is for all of his rhetoric to the contrary a dyed-in-the-wool multiculturalist. The Observer states:

So, there you have it: he is calling for a complete denial of the truth. It is therefore incumbent upon those of us who know the reality of the situation with respect to Islamisation that we redouble our efforts to ensure that our message reaches as many people as possible. We must build mass movements across Europe to overthrow these parasitic and harmful elites. They will acknowledge reality, or they will perish politically. We aim to do this via the ballot box and peaceful campaigning, but if political channels are further closed off and people’s concerns about Islamisation are ignored and dismissed as insane rantings, then it is almost inevitable that there will be many more Breiviks. Let us hope that the latter eventuality never comes to pass. It is Jagland and his ilk who are playing with fire, not us.